County hears heated criticism of Children & Family Services as agency outlines workload, budget and reforms

San Bernardino County supervisors on Wednesday received a broad review of Children and Family Services's (CFS) legal obligations, funding and programs and then spent more than two hours hearing public testimony from parents and advocates alleging repeated and systemic problems.

Human Services Assistant Executive Officer Gilbert Ramos and CFS Director Jeannie Glasco opened with an overview of CFS responsibilities: the county must receive and investigate child abuse hotline referrals, prioritize child safety, aim to prevent removal when possible and pursue timely permanency (reunification, guardianship or adoption) when removal occurs. The presentation described a structured decision‑making process (SDM) for assessing reports, court timelines (detention hearings within 72 hours, status reviews every six months), prevention programs funded under the Family First Prevention Services Act and youth services including an Independent Living Program and summer enrichment camps.

Ramos presented budget figures the department said underpin those services. CFS told the board that roughly $674 million supports child welfare services (mix of federal, state and county realignment funds) and that the county is carrying expanding client assistance and administrative budgets driven by caseload and placement levels.

"Removing a child from a parent's home is one of the most difficult decisions we make," CFS Director Jeannie Glasco said, summarizing the department's stated emphasis on family preservation and kinship placement when safety permits.

Public comment that followed was long and often emotional. Dozens of parents and advocates alleged a pattern of problematic practice: they described cases they said involved incomplete or inaccurate social worker reports, poor notice to families (including language access concerns), long delays to court hearings, failures to pursue kinship placements, and in some cases alleged that children were placed in homes where the speakers said they were later harmed.

"Parents in this county are experiencing warrantless removals based on allegations that do not meet the legal standard," one commenter said, adding that a federal class action and a 2022 county grand jury report had raised central concerns about the system.

CFS staff responded that the department investigates every complaint, provides escalation paths (parent partners, supervisors, regional deputy directors) and has begun an independent consultant review and an internal ad hoc process to identify reforms. Staff pointed to recent operational changes—including efforts to reduce late court reports, expanded training, and new family resource investments—to address procedural and capacity issues.

What happened next: Supervisors thanked staff for the briefing, acknowledged the public concern, and stressed follow‑up steps. The board has an ad hoc committee reviewing CFS operations and had already contracted independent technical assistance; public speakers asked for those reviews to be expedited and to include evidence of fix‑forward steps and oversight mechanisms.

Provenance: CFS overview began at SEG 5143; extended public comment on the department filled the record from SEG 6168 to near adjournment (SEG 7406).

Key details and clarifications

- SDM and court process: CFS described the statemandated SDM tools and the standard court timeline for dependency cases, emphasizing that institutional decisions are balanced by judicial oversight.

- Budget snapshot: CFS staff cited a multi‑source budget and rising client assistance costs, and said board investments in staffing had reduced frontline caseloads.

- Channels for complaints: CFS noted parents may escalate concerns through parent partners, supervisors, managers and deputy directors; CFS also has an ombudsman function for intake and review.

Prosecutorial or judicial questions: Speakers repeatedly urged independent oversight, better notice, and faster access to hearings and evidence. County officials said the board is pursuing an independent review and additional procedural steps to reduce late court reports and improve access to information.

Provenance: presentation material and budget slides at SEG 5464; public comment pile‑on occurred in SEG 6168–7406.